agenthero wrote:Just focus on what you can control. Be good at what you do. LSATs matter but not nearly as much as, uh, being a good lawyer.

I think people can agree on this, to a point. I'm sure there are good lawyers doing shit work and making pennies. But to a point this is true. But the initial post was just how stupid everyone was for being upset about not getting good LSAT scores. Which is completely stupid because of the the way hiring and salary works, as you said there probably is a good correlation between LSAT and salary. But yes, LSAT isn't everything.

Also, that analogy does suck because all those guys had the possibility at playing at huge schools and let other things get in their way. Randy was committed to Notre Dame before he got in trouble with the law and chad and terrell were both too stupid to get into college so they had to go to CC.

You may want to spend some time in the employment forum, you my friend are stupid. If data isn't going to convince you, no amount of rationale will.

reality convinces me, not website stats. But, whatever dude...who cares at this point?! Last year I interviewed at least 50 attorneys in Atlanta because I was considering LS....well, according to my research, (1) the lsat had NOTHING to do with the attorney's overall success..like I said, most couldn't even give me a solid answer on what they scored on the test and (2) the so-called "tier" of school, which is really just another bullshit construct (according to me) also had VERY LITTLE to do with the lawyer's salary. The only Harvard grad interviewed had gone into education. But, whatever. You're right. If the numbers show that T3/T4 grads eat dog shit, then, fine. But, as long as there are exceptions to this, I FEEL ALIVE. Because we all know that you're on your way to biglaw, right???!!!!

Lastly, do you see why you did poorly on the LSAT? I'll lay out a parallel reasoning and tell me if you can spot the flaw. "I know some attorneys that are employed and make bank who went to bad schools. I also know there is factual data that has been collected by reputable people who say that it is extremely hard to get those kinds of jobs from bad schools. Therefore, since I know some people that have gotten good jobs from bad schools, the data is false."

Gee, now I'm really impressed with your logic skills and mastery of Powerscore books. Let me guess: You got into Yale? Harvard? And, btw, I just took the Oct test, but my study regiment was basically reading about 70% of the Bibles, less than 20 PTs with scores ranging from 166 to 171. I read this fucking site like a maniac, only to learn that most were like you, mechanical dickweeds that mainline stats, ignoring reality. Well, if that makes me stupid, then I happily accept the diss.

So, here's Asha Rangappa, a URM (who, according to your "stats" figure in where about??) basically blowing a snot rocket on your prerequsites for attaining a biglaw job. Once again, the last is only a rake dragged over the lawn of potential law students.

TLS: Yale Law School is known for the truly comprehensive nature of its admissions process; thus, by virtue of being less formulaic, this process generates a lot of speculation! What are some of the biggest misconceptions about the YLS Admissions process?

AR: The biggest misconception is that we base our admission on numbers alone. I am amazed that this misconception persists, given that there are sites like LSN that show that we do turn down people with 180 LSATs and 4.0 GPAs and take people with lower tests scores and GPAs instead. Hmmm. Why would this be the case? Well, because we read the applications! We have too few spots to just bring in the people who happened to score well on exams and standardized tests. We use these numbers to be confident in an applicant’s academic potential – we don’t want to bring someone here who can’t handle the work and will struggle – but beyond that we want people who are interesting, multi-faceted, intellectually curious, and will be great lawyers and representatives of YLS. Numbers don’t tell you about these things.

rahimali wrote:So, here's Asha Rangappa, a URM (who, according to your "stats" figure in where about??) basically blowing a snot rocket on your prerequsites for attaining a biglaw job. Once again, the last is only a rake dragged over the lawn of potential law students.

TLS: Yale Law School is known for the truly comprehensive nature of its admissions process; thus, by virtue of being less formulaic, this process generates a lot of speculation! What are some of the biggest misconceptions about the YLS Admissions process?

AR: The biggest misconception is that we base our admission on numbers alone. I am amazed that this misconception persists, given that there are sites like LSN that show that we do turn down people with 180 LSATs and 4.0 GPAs and take people with lower tests scores and GPAs instead. Hmmm. Why would this be the case? Well, because we read the applications! We have too few spots to just bring in the people who happened to score well on exams and standardized tests. We use these numbers to be confident in an applicant’s academic potential – we don’t want to bring someone here who can’t handle the work and will struggle – but beyond that we want people who are interesting, multi-faceted, intellectually curious, and will be great lawyers and representatives of YLS. Numbers don’t tell you about these things.

rahimali wrote:So, here's Asha Rangappa, a URM (who, according to your "stats" figure in where about??) basically blowing a snot rocket on your prerequsites for attaining a biglaw job. Once again, the last is only a rake dragged over the lawn of potential law students.

TLS: Yale Law School is known for the truly comprehensive nature of its admissions process; thus, by virtue of being less formulaic, this process generates a lot of speculation! What are some of the biggest misconceptions about the YLS Admissions process?

AR: The biggest misconception is that we base our admission on numbers alone. I am amazed that this misconception persists, given that there are sites like LSN that show that we do turn down people with 180 LSATs and 4.0 GPAs and take people with lower tests scores and GPAs instead. Hmmm. Why would this be the case? Well, because we read the applications! We have too few spots to just bring in the people who happened to score well on exams and standardized tests. We use these numbers to be confident in an applicant’s academic potential – we don’t want to bring someone here who can’t handle the work and will struggle – but beyond that we want people who are interesting, multi-faceted, intellectually curious, and will be great lawyers and representatives of YLS. Numbers don’t tell you about these things.

lol, you have to be the dumbest person i've ever encountered.

Your ability to formulate an argument is akin to a small child. "LSAT scores aren't indicative of big law because Yale (the best law school in the country) can afford to take a 172 with a best selling novel instead of a 180 directly out of college"

rahimali wrote:So, here's Asha Rangappa, a URM (who, according to your "stats" figure in where about??) basically blowing a snot rocket on your prerequsites for attaining a biglaw job. Once again, the last is only a rake dragged over the lawn of potential law students.

TLS: Yale Law School is known for the truly comprehensive nature of its admissions process; thus, by virtue of being less formulaic, this process generates a lot of speculation! What are some of the biggest misconceptions about the YLS Admissions process?

AR: The biggest misconception is that we base our admission on numbers alone. I am amazed that this misconception persists, given that there are sites like LSN that show that we do turn down people with 180 LSATs and 4.0 GPAs and take people with lower tests scores and GPAs instead. Hmmm. Why would this be the case? Well, because we read the applications! We have too few spots to just bring in the people who happened to score well on exams and standardized tests. We use these numbers to be confident in an applicant’s academic potential – we don’t want to bring someone here who can’t handle the work and will struggle – but beyond that we want people who are interesting, multi-faceted, intellectually curious, and will be great lawyers and representatives of YLS. Numbers don’t tell you about these things.

Every school likes to say those things. The diversity page on YLS is..."sang in the Vatican, won 5 Emmys" btw. I have a better shot at trying to get a decent score. While those qualities do matter a lot, why not increase your chance in terms of numbers as well by getting a good LSAT score? It can only help.

He is "proving" that the difference between a 164 and a 172 has zero impact on if you get biglaw (and likewise that where you go to school has zero impact on biglaw).

Well citing interviews on Yale's holistic admissions has absolutely nothing to do with furthering his argument. I'd leave him alone I think he's seriously retarded or something.

I think the lady that wrote Sex Drugs and Coco puffs or whatever had like a 160. Anyway I think Yale does an act of charity and admits someone with subpar numbers once every 10 cycles. ( I have no facts to back this up I am speaking out my ass to anger people)

He is "proving" that the difference between a 164 and a 172 has zero impact on if you get biglaw (and likewise that where you go to school has zero impact on biglaw).

Well citing interviews on Yale's holistic admissions has absolutely nothing to do with furthering his argument. I'd leave him alone I think he's seriously retarded or something.

I think the lady that wrote Sex Drugs and Coco puffs or whatever had like a 160. Anyway I think Yale does an act of charity and admits someone with subpar numbers once every 10 cycles. ( I have no facts to back this up I am speaking out my ass to anger people)

No it was Elizabeth Wurtzel and she wrote "Prozac Nation", she got into Yale with a 160 and also failed the NY bar. Chuck Klosterman wrote "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs". hth.

He is "proving" that the difference between a 164 and a 172 has zero impact on if you get biglaw (and likewise that where you go to school has zero impact on biglaw).

Well citing interviews on Yale's holistic admissions has absolutely nothing to do with furthering his argument. I'd leave him alone I think he's seriously retarded or something.

I think the lady that wrote Sex Drugs and Coco puffs or whatever had like a 160. Anyway I think Yale does an act of charity and admits someone with subpar numbers once every 10 cycles. ( I have no facts to back this up I am speaking out my ass to anger people)

Are you talking about Prozac Nation? Ya, I heard she had shit numbers too. Let me just go work on my best seller, retaking the LSAT, psssh.

This isn't a debate...and I never said anything about biglaw...what I said was that people who graduated from T3 and T4 schools, which are seemingly undesirable, still have the potential to make a decent living, and be happy. And in the cases I've seen (as I mentioned before interviewing lawers in Atlanta), making 100K+ a year. I mean, this very site says the very same thing!

In the many interviews I did, the lsat barely came up as a topic! It was a fucking minor hurdle that, in my opinion amounts to shit! Reading the information on the site, the lsat is regarded as intergal to success in getting into a T1 school and subsequently getting biglaw jobs..if that's what you want, don't piss yourself when others DON'T. Personally, I stopped giving a shit about T1 schools when I realized that it was more about the individual rather than these dreamy stats that everybody wants. I'm not applying to Harvard...Fuck Harvard! The one Harvard Law grad that I talked too teaches 6th grade social studies!And, my projections for the lsat is about 170. A fucking learnable standardized test. That's it! Yall need to stop crying over 160's and work with what you have.

And, if the associate Dean of students at Yale is blowing smoke up everybody's ass by pretending that it's not aboutt numbers, then it's even more of a reason to say fuck these schools you fa*gots are dying to get into.

rahimali wrote:This isn't a debate...and I never said anything about biglaw...what I said was that people who graduated from T3 and T4 schools, which are seemingly undesirable, still have the potential to make a decent living, and be happy. And in the cases I've seen (as I mentioned before interviewing lawers in Atlanta), making 100K+ a year. I mean, this very site says the very same thing!

In the many interviews I did, the lsat barely came up as a topic! It was a fucking minor hurdle that, in my opinion amounts to shit! Reading the information on the site, the lsat is regarded as intergal to success in getting into a T1 school and subsequently getting biglaw jobs..if that's what you want, don't piss yourself when others DON'T. Personally, I stopped giving a shit about T1 schools when I realized that it was more about the individual rather than these dreamy stats that everybody wants. I'm not applying to Harvard...Fuck Harvard! The one Harvard Law grad that I talked too teaches 6th grade social studies!And, my projections for the lsat is about 170. A fucking learnable standardized test. That's it! Yall need to stop crying over 160's and work with what you have.

And, if the associate Dean of students at Yale is blowing smoke up everybody's ass by pretending that it's not aboutt numbers, then it's even more of a reason to say fuck these schools you fa*gots are dying to get into.

Actually, that isnt't what you said. You said that LSAT wasn't correlated to future earnings. Which has been proved here and many times before, as wrong. Please keep backpedaling.

Patriot1208 wrote:Actually, that isnt't what you said. You said that LSAT wasn't correlated to future earnings. Which has been proved here and many times before, as wrong. Please keep backpedaling.

A fucking standardized test having that much gravity in regards to a lawyer's potential salary is utter bullshit. Kiss my ass. It may relate to your chances of getting into a better school, which does has weight on potential salary, but the lsat's main purpose is to determine whether you'd survive law school..like I said, thinning out the herd. THUS, the lsat correlates to a student's future salary about as much as the male proctor's dick size, buddy.

You need to just scratch your whole argument and go back to the drawing board.

Patriot1208 wrote:Actually, that isnt't what you said. You said that LSAT wasn't correlated to future earnings. Which has been proved here and many times before, as wrong. Please keep backpedaling.

A fucking standardized test having that much gravity in regards to a lawyer's potential salary is utter bullshit. Kiss my ass. It may relate to your chances of getting into a better school, which does has weight on potential salary, but the lsat's main purpose is to determine whether you'd survive law school..like I said, thinning out the herd. THUS, the lsat correlates to a student's future salary about as much as the male proctor's dick size, buddy.

rahimali wrote:see? I want to punch this idiot in the face. The 90th percentile and he wants to cancel? I'm going to behead you with a piano wire garote.

Bro, just because you have low standards does not mean so does everyone else. If hanging out with people who like to excel bothers you, you are in the wrong place.

I respect OP for worrying that he didn't break 170, that would be and was a concern of mine as well. Like I said earlier though, I wouldn't cancel that. The first time I took the LSAT I thought I scored anywhere between 162 and 172 and didn't finish a couple of sections... ended up with a 170.

You got a 170 and writing again? What school do you want to go to lol? In Canada (Ontario) the schools I'm applying to Osgoode U of T etc. a 170 will get you in everywhere as long as your GPA isn't abyssmal

I would like HYS. Unfortionately I retook in June and did worse than the first time, so only a very high 170s should give me a decent chance this cycle.

Just curious, how much lower did you score your second time and how did you think you had done *reasoning for not canceling?

but the dude is missing the point that a 164, though good for the national average, probably isn't good enough for a top 25 school. it is hard getting into big law from even the 20th best school.

his point that there are many people in TTT who make 6, even 7 figures is true. in fact, i have met people who make 7 figures in law, well respected in their field, own a yacht and when they tried to take an LSAT for fun in their 50s, scored in the low 140s. this does not mean they aren't great lawyers.

conversely, there are yale graduates who make $15/hour, and don't get great legal jobs.

the fact is at the end of the day, an ugly girl in a beautiful dress is still ugly and a beautiful girl in baggy clothes is still beautiful.

but it is a lot easier to win the beauty pageant, when you have the nice clothes.

it doesn't guarantee anything, but it puts the ball in your court. in other words, if your non-academic skills are up to par and you don't fuck up, big law is yours to lose. if you don't get a top score, the ball isn't in your court or your arena.... you need to work your ass off to maybe, hopefully, even have a chance at finding it.

but the dude is missing the point that a 164, though good for the national average, probably isn't good enough for a top 25 school. it is hard getting into big law from even the 20th best school.

his point that there are many people in TTT who make 6, even 7 figures is true. in fact, i have met people who make 7 figures in law, well respected in their field, own a yacht and when they tried to take an LSAT for fun in their 50s, scored in the low 140s. this does not mean they aren't great lawyers.

conversely, there are yale graduates who make $15/hour, and don't get great legal jobs.

the fact is at the end of the day, an ugly girl in a beautiful dress is still ugly and a beautiful girl in baggy clothes is still beautiful.

but it is a lot easier to win the beauty pageant, when you have the nice clothes.

it doesn't guarantee anything, but it puts the ball in your court. in other words, if your non-academic skills are up to par and you don't fuck up, big law is yours to lose. if you don't get a top score, the ball isn't in your court or your arena.... you need to work your ass off to maybe, hopefully, even have a chance at finding it.